Posted by Martin Omander
a resident of Rex Manor
on Mar 21, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Old Ben and CP Resident are right on the money. People don't like change and they will complain about anything. We have a bustling economy, Mountain View businesses want to hire more people, and it is reasonable that we build more housing so we keep traffic manageable.

Posted by Garrett83
a resident of another community
on Mar 21, 2014 at 3:28 pmGarrett83 is a registered user.

526 toliets have to get somewhere, low flush or no flush we have to spend the money water saving buildings. Thousands of single family homes, hundreds of garden style apartments with acres of landscaping in the hot valley.

Posted by Dereliction
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm

Personally, I'm fine with these new apartments. They are much better than the old broken down retail bldgs previously there.

How can 4 council members pass a project change that they admit to have not seen before? It simple. There's 100,000 reasons. Residents of SWAN have been sold out for a measly $100K in the city coffers that will go straight into the pockets of staffers. These 4 are sending a clear message for when they run their next campaigns. If you need me to spell it out for you, well, you are not paying attention.

Posted by lunch money
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 21, 2014 at 6:03 pm

@feeling fine - Here's my best guess on the fine. According to these city web pages (Web Link and Web Link), it looks like Prometheus will have to get a "post-removal permit." The fee for heritage tree removal is $116 for the first tree, $58 for each additional tree on the same property. Then they will have to either buy the city 2 new trees, or pay an "in-lieu" fee of $250 per tree. So, that's a total of $674. Chump change, really. Why follow the law when you can pay the fine with your lunch money?

Posted by Time out Needed.... NOW
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Mar 22, 2014 at 8:29 am

Let's see.

Council voted on a project containing many changes they just discovered. City endorsed a developer who illegally took down trees. City had no idea what level of public benefits should be offered. Staff thought that some property beautification elements would suffice. City engaged in last minute haggling to define a public benefit "fee" with no economic basis and with no defined use.

I fear to imagine what the approval of San Antonio Phase II will look like.

Time to follow Palo Alto's lead and put the brakes on fly-by-night zoning.

Posted by Garrett83
a resident of another community
on Mar 22, 2014 at 9:12 amGarrett83 is a registered user.

I would say fine them more then that or have them pay for tree planting of 20 trees. Not just parking lot trees but Oaks, Redwoods and real beautiful that will last.

Public benefits should be money for public buildings or equipment. Lawn sod, tennis courts repair, paint for schools, books, funds to buy land for parks, tools and tires for public vehicles, or streetlamps.

Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 22, 2014 at 11:03 am

People don't like change because it wrecks the quality of life at their property. How would you like four stories to tower over your backyard where your children play? Who is looking down upon you & your family? How fair is it to trade your view of half of the sky and all of your privacy and quiet for $100,000 to the City? Or for any price? Why is our city allowed to sell our zoning protection? Zoning is supposed to protect us from just this sort of thing happening. My lifelong investment in my one story little four-plex, all labor self done for 40 years, is going to be ruined for this reason, when 801 ECR is built. This will happen again with the proposal to build beside one story homes (with long term residents) where HARV's CAR WASH is currently: Four stories butting right up against several one story homes that house real people who will lose the private use of their yards and now must keep their blinds & curtains shut, when they did not have to before, as the fence between them and the car wash was sufficient for their well lit & yet private enjoyment in their homes. Do you want to be next for this? If not object! Our rights and freedoms should not be for sale by the city! Don't object and see what else our city sells out from under us.

Posted by Time out Needed.... NOW
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Mar 22, 2014 at 1:28 pm

@Garrett

I agree that the nature and the size of Public Benefits for Mountain View should not be defined by developers (... or out-of-town serial posters like yourself).
They also should not be hacked together by City Council, minutes before approving a project.

Time to follow Palo Alto's lead and put the brakes on fly-by-night zoning.

Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Castro City
on Mar 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm

Those public benefits just mentioned can be paid for by the City of Mountain View without trading away anything. Our City Council must quit trading away things to big money like dictators. We should be able to count on things, as we used to. Would you mind if your backyard, half the SQ. FT. of your home, +your car and/or bike got traded away for the good of others elsewhere in the city? Same thing as trading away someone view of half the sky and the privacy in their backyard or their ability to get through traffic around town. The revolution in Russia benefited the public greatly... at the extreme expense of the wealthy who owned the stuff that was redistributed to all. Does that sound good to you? In my experience, give something for free to someone who didn't work for it and they won't appreciate or work to maintain it as would whose who had worked for it in the first place. I thought we knew that social plan didn't work and is flawed beyond redemption. Aren't we more in favor of democracy? If so, we must maintain our zoning protections so it makes sense to work hard to improve a piece of property. I never would have if I knew this was going to happen to it.

I don't want high density housing or offices in Mountain View, not now, not in the future. Vote for City Council candidates that will fight this over building. If we don't it will go on and on until Mountain View will be renamed Building and Car View

Posted by incognito
a resident of Waverly Park
on Mar 23, 2014 at 10:06 am

Drive down El Camino Real in Sunnyvale in the afternoon. On the south side of the street is a very large new building that casts a huge shadow across the entire street. I wasn't even looking at the building, it was that the street seemed strangely dark that caught my attention.

That's not what I want for MV.

I have really enjoyed the views of our beautiful hills to the south, and there are tons of people who move to California for the sunshine. We're losing both of those with every tall building that goes up. I wish we had a height restriction.

Also, we learned at a recent City Council neighborhood committee meeting that there are 10,000 more cars per day (yes you read that right) going traveling on Grant Road than there were ONE year ago because drivers from Sunnyvale, Cupertino, etc are taking Grant Road to avoid 85. It won't be very enjoyable or convenient to live in a city that has so much car traffic that you avoid not just the freeway, but several local streets during several times of the day. Heck, I coulda stayed in Los Angeles.

Tthe approved building tapers down to two stories at the rear, which turned out to be too high to comply with city policies because of the proximity of single-story rental homes. City Council members approved the project with an exception to the rule.

Business as usual - What developers want, developers get! The Majority of City Council disregards the residents of nearby single-story rental homes.

Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 28, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Garrett83: The last thing you posted I agree with totally. The only way to not be unfair to those who paid top dollar for their single story, private residences is to keep all the new multi-story building in an area of just that, built that way from the start.